As near as I can tell, the Republican Healthcare Plan is that no change is necessary. Except mayble less government coverage than today.
If ‘free market’ healthcare is the best approach then why hasn’t it:
1. reduced costs?
2. increased quality?
3. eliminated the phrase “pre-existing conditions” from our vocabulary?
4. covered all Americans?
5. caused the insurance industry to establish preventive healthcare programs?
Please explain how the current program benefits America when America ranks 37th in world healthcare.
Anyone?
While I am not a fan of an ‘all insurance’ health plan, I will take this over what we have now regardless of what Leader Limbaugh says.
I see health care just like I see any other business. So, in my opinion, a government take-over of a service industry like health care and health insurance is just as un-constitutionally-founded as a government takeover of a consumer good. To demonstrate, here’s an example: I’ll substitute “Bread” into your argument just to show how I see the un-constitutionally-founded-ness of a government takeover of all things health related.
If ‘free market’ BREAD is the best approach then why hasn’t it:
1. reduced costs? FYI the price of BREAD has risen 2,500% since 1967 from 20 cents to $5.00. 2,500%!! Outrageous! Government intervention is obviously needed.
2. increased quality? Bread is basically the same as it’s ever been. Government intervention is obviously needed to increase quality. We must get better than Spanish tortillas.
3. covered all Americans? Every American has a RIGHT to Bread. It’s right there in the Constitu…well it SHOULD be in there…
5. caused the BREAD industry to establish preventive Hunger programs? (Is it even possible for GOD! to stop people from being hungry? If he can’t, how can Government? Aren’t we supposed to feel hungry a few times a day? Isn’t it an unreasonable expectation to want everyone to be hunger free?) — Regardless, no matter the cost…no matter how unreasonable…SOMETHING must! be done to prevent hunger and government is THEE answer.
Please explain how the current extremely costly bread with stagnant quality benefits America? Especially since French rolls and Italian bread and Greek pitas are obviously superior on the arbitrary World Bread list. Obviously free bread for everyone is THEE answer.
Seriously, when it comes to business, services, and consumer goods…I really doubt that anyone has a right to anything other than a level fair playing field provided by government regulation. But that’s just me…
I liked your reply. Made me laugh.
Which of these government-involved programs would you place in the same category as healthcare… and bread?
Medicare
Social Security
Federal Interstate Highway System
ATF
NASA
FDA
DEA
Federal Railroad Administration
Fish and Wildlife Services
National Park Service
Consumer Protection Agency
Farm Commodities and Risk Management
Labor, Health, and Human Services
Department of Transportation
Subcommittee on Capital, Markets, Insurance, and Government sponsored Enterprises
Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit
The list goes on forever with federal monies and authorities in areas never imagined by our founding fathers.
I think national healthcare falls under the Preamble to the Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
‘general Welfare’ seems appropriate…
…it’s PROMOTE the general welfare; NOT establish, nor insure, nor provide for….but PROMOTE, as in a pat on the back and a thumbs up before someone else goes out on a tight rope. The thumbs-up is an endorsement or promotion and is NOWHERE near the same as actually going out on the tight rope with them. What you advocate is to change the definition of PROMOTE to the government Not only giving a thumbs-up about welfare, but also providing for it! or in other words stepping out onto the tight rope.
But feel free to want this, it’s a free country, but please advocate a Constitutional ammendment to do so. You shouldn’t be able to just change the definition of words in the Constutution.
As for your list, I admitted that it is government’s role to provide us all a level playing field for commerce. Perhaps let’s focus on that common ground, and find a solid course of action from there.
Rich, you’re right; it’s PROMOTE. Where you and I differ is that I think health care for all citizens of our nation will PROMOTE the general welfare, whereas you seem to think otherwise.
1. reduced costs?
This is due to people walking into urgent care clinics or into emergency rooms for things like a runny nose or an upset stomach (if you don’t believe me, go to Froedtert or Columbia-St.Mary’s sometime in the evening). These hospitals have to bloat their staff so much because of things like this that raise their costs which are passed on to the people that are able to pay for their own care. Since hospitals will still treat recipients of emergency care even if they do not have coverage, it will raise their costs.
2. increased quality?
When was the last time the government was innovative on anything besides NASA during the space race and national defense (much of which was contracted to the private sector)? The private sector has increased its quality given that people who have cancer can go into remission and then have it eradicated altogether. The pharmaceutical companies have the incentive to develop new medications and treatments because they would be able to profit from it. A socialized healthcare system removes that incentive and thus destroys the motivation.
3. eliminated the phrase “pre-existing conditions” from our vocabulary?
Probably because smokers are more likely to make a claim in the future, so this is reflected in an increased premium. The same for people that have had very serious car accidents in the past. The actuarial tables back this. The insurance companies cannot afford to be impartial in the way that they determine premiums. Averages exist for a reason.
4. covered all Americans?
Because not all Americans know about the options that exist for them. Coverage that is more than adequate is available from a wide variety of providers at a cost of about $80 a month for an individual or maybe up to $180 or $190 a month for a family plan. It’s not tough to find these, but too many people are looking at their own government to see what stuff the government is going to give them. Would you want to help pay for me to go through a physical therapy program to help recover a knee I injured while playing flag football? Personally, I would rather that be a choice between my physician and me rather than worrying about the public supplementing my own healthcare.
5. caused the insurance industry to establish preventive healthcare programs?
It does exist. Having been involved with several insurance companies in the past, I can speak to how premiums may spike after getting preventive procedures done, but they settle when time goes by and I am still healthy. This is especially true in dentistry. No, an insurance company is not going to reward you or lower your deductible strictly on the basis of you getting preventive work done.
Socialized healthcare is a disaster. The more people involved in the process and the more arbiters in the process, the less efficient your care will be. Then again, when was efficiency or lowering costs ever a hallmark of the Democratic Party? You guys are a miracle…you are actually outspending the Bush Administration despite two major military engagements starting during Bush’s term. And you support a governor who, in the face of a state budget deficit of over $6 billion, decides to raise every conceivable tax and fee in this state (even though the Journal Sentinel was quick to point out that Doyle vetoed a sales tax increase in Milwaukee County…but failed to state in the headline that Doyle put said tax in the budget).
Yeah, keep sticking it to those rich fat cats…after all, they do not actually put their own displosable income into places that employ others or support the businesses of others. Why do MSO musicaians continue to vote for people that tax the people that pay their salaries? Oh, those kooky liberals!
Cameron, I’d like to address your points. You said, “reduced costs?
This is due to people walking into urgent care clinics or into emergency rooms for things like a runny nose or an upset stomach.”
Why do people walk into urgent cares and ER’s for things like a runny nose or an upset stomach? Often, it’s because they don’t have a primary care physician to go to for those problems, so they use urgent care and the emergency room as their primary care. My wife works as a registered nurse in an emergency room in the Milwaukee area, and the most common reason people give for coming to the ER for minor injuries or illnesses is because they don’t have health insurance. If we want to reduce those costs, wouldn’t it make sense to provide some sort of health insurance coverage to those folks?
I’d also like to address this statement of yours: “The more people involved in the process and the more arbiters in the process, the less efficient your care will be.” You do realize that health insurance companies are incredibly bloated bureaucracies with tremendous overhead costs, right? Numerous studies have shown that the administrative costs for Medicare — a government-run program — run at about 2%, as compared to 30% or more for private insurance, so tell me again which is more efficient.
As for your “kooky liberals” crack, I’m just wondering what name calling has to do with a discussion about health care reform.
And now to address your points (in between 4th of July parties…I had a reply ready to fire away, but my computer died yesterday)…
1) On Reduced Costs:
The bit you shared about your wife’s experience in an emergency room helps illustrate the point I was making earlier when I said that many people who do not have insurance appear at hospital ERs or Urgent Care clinics which in turn drives up insurance premiums and deductibles. Again, if they took the time to budget their expenses, insurance is not cheap, but it is certainly not unaffordable. The dollar figures I cited are not arbitrary. That was for a very good group plan I had several years ago and I was able to afford it without trouble because my family manages our expenses to pay for priorities. We need insurance before we buy a flatscreen high-definition TV or another car. That’s just the way it is. We managed that despite a very limited income.
2) On Private vs. Public Efficiency:
How efficient is the post office? How about the DMV? The private insurers are charging the prices they are because that is the cost of the service they offer. Just as a mechanic will not service a car without an overhead charge, an insurance provider will not suggest, advise, and implement a plan without having the expertise necessary to find a plan fitting the client. If you do not like Acuity’s offerings for your insurance, you are not bound by law to stick with them. You can look into Humana, Northwestern Mutual, Thrivent, etc. That’s the beauty of the free market…if you don’t like what one company has to offer, you don’t have to give your business to that entity. Would the same be true with the government’s plan if I did not like it? No. I would be paying for that in addition to my plan.
Here’s why this is blatant socialism. The Messiah was in a press conference last week and got pretty agitated with Jake Tapper for having the audacity to ask how one could keep a private plan under the public plan. The One said that you could keep your plan and your doctor if you liked it. Tapper pressed on and asked if the same would be true for a person if his or her employer no longer offered insurance through a private firm but rather through the public plan. Obama did not have an answer. He still could not address that in his infomercial on ABC last week. So, how can the private insurance companies compete if people have to pay for public insurance in addition to a private plan? The private insurers will not survive and the loss of those jobs will be on the Obama Administration and its Congress’s hands.
Re: my “‘kooky liberals’ crack” that is apparently “name calling.”
That was a bit of an attempt at humor using your own methodology. You often tag your posts with “Those Kooky Conservatives.” Apparently, you are very capable of dishing it out, but you cannot take it when someone fires back at you using your phraseology. Lecture me some more about name calling.
The bottom line is that people need to take the responsibility to budget for and research insurance plans that will work for them. If they are too negligent to do that, I have no sympathy to bail them out. I am all for helping people who need the help, but I could not care less about those that have all the resources available and do nothing about it. The government under this administration obviously does not think the general populace is capable of taking care of this matter by themselves. So, don’t you find it a bit patronizing or insulting when the government essentially tells the American public that many of them are too incompetent or stupid to figure it out for themselves?
Rich, I submit that President Obama’s plan (that I generally oppose) is a promotion. It promotes insurance protection over all other possibilities and forces citizens to obtain it under penalty of taxation. It does not ‘provide’ like Medicare or like National Defense or like Social Security. The only time it ‘provides’ is when a person cannot afford a private insurance plan. Perhaps there will be a government plan that can be purchased but again it is purchased and not provided. I see this entire plan as a promotion.
Secondly, most of the agencies I mentioned have nothing to do with regulating commerce between states but regulating commerce among the states. By that I mean that if you produce food intended to be sold only within your state, the FDA still regulates it.
Third, there are agencies mentioned which have nothing to do with commerce whatsoever, i.e. NASA, Fish and Wildlife, National Parks, etc.
My point was that whatever boundaries existed in 1781 to control the Federal government have already been breached on other issues… for the purpose of promoting the general welfare.
I abhor the idea that the Constitution is more honored in the breach than in its substance but those are today’s facts.
My last point to your comment is that it is not a level playing field when some people cannot afford healthcare. Wealth discrimination (and possibly natural ability) is the only accepted remaining form of discrimination in our society. I am not advocating that it be removed, I think wealth and ability are good discriminators. I just think it should not apply to healthcare. And “pre-existing conditions” needs to be discarded on the rubbish pile of history.
Two days ago I learned that my sister-in-law needs $30,000 for kidney surgery. Why? She has insurance, but , oops, she changed providers last year and the “pre-existing condition” clause kicks in because her last doctor did not remove all kidney stones, just the ones that were a problem and removable. So now she is in pain everyday , waiting, waiting for it get so bad that she can go to emergency because the nature of the problem will have increased to a debilitating level. Ahh, free market healthcare, pre-existing conditions, non-portability… the stuff that tragedies are made of.
I don’t like Obama’s plan because it favors the insurance industry and gives them 48 million more policy holders. And if you don’t have a plan, you get taxed for it.
However, in the case of healthcare, a marginal national healthcare plan is better than no plan at all. The Republicans have squat on this issue. You can guess how my sister-in-law’s husband will vote in future elections. He owns his own business and is the sole employee. No welfare case there.
Cameron, the Obama Plan is not, definitely not, ‘socialized medicine’. Where are the controls over hospitals, the number of clinics, the number of procedures, the types of medical equipment they can own? Goodness gracious, can’t anyone but me see that the Obama Plan is to raise the tide and float all the insurance boats? Creating 48 million policy holders by force of law is a feat. Then, afterwards, outsourcing all government insurance policies to low cost bidders rivals a governmental transfer of wealth not seen since Russia sold its utilities ownership for pennies on the dollar.
Ah,but then, I am a cynic. But a practical cynic. If somebody is going to get rich off of this, I favor that American citizens get their share,too. Affordable healthcare may not be an enumerated constitutional right but neither are corporate subsidies, national transportation systems, and a space program. The health of an American citizen should be equally important as moving tomatoes from southern California to Milwaukee in the winter.
“…an ‘all insurance’ health plan…” and “President Obama’s plan (that you generally oppose)” are two seperate things. Nice switcheroo. NOT.
Switcheroo’s like that make it seem like you are not really interested in debate. Instead it makes you look as if you just wanna win. How petty, but hopeflly I’m wrong. So, PB? Which is it? Are we debating President Obama’s plan (that you generally oppose) or are we debating “an ‘all insurance’ health plan…”??
Zach, yes indeed. If all Private citizens obtained their own Private health care it would most definitly PROMOTE the general welfare. However, it is NOT the federal government’s job or role or function to PROVIDE for it nor ensure it nor establish it for us all. Instead we are all FREE to purchase it or not purchase it on our own. That’s called LIBERTY.
Hi, Rich
” The Obama-Biden plan both builds on and improves our current insurance system, which most Americans continue to rely upon, and leaves Medicare intact for older and disabled Americans. Under the Obama-Biden plan, Americans will be able to maintain their current coverage, have access to new affordable options, and see the quality of their health care improve and their costs go down. The Obama-Biden plan provides new affordable health insurance options by: (1) guaranteeing eligibility for all health insurance plans; (2) creating a National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses purchase private health insurance; (3) providing new tax credits to families who can’t afford health insurance and to small businesses with a new Small Business Health Tax Credit; (4) requiring all large employers to contribute towards health coverage for their employees or towards the cost of the public plan; (5) requiring all children have health care coverage; (6) expanding eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs; and (7) allowing flexibility for state health reform plans.”
It is here.
Here is the story.
“In a revamped health care system envisioned by senators, people would be required to carry health insurance just like motorists must get auto coverage now. The government would provide subsidies for the poor and many middle-class families, but those who still refuse to sign up would face fines of more than $1,000.”